>> cenk: welcome to "the young turks." as you might imagine i'm a little worked up about the hearing on gun control today in the senate. and they got a little fiery as well. >> you missed that point completely. it's basic. >> senator i think you missed it! >> order! >> cenk: i think they all missed the point. all right. we're going to have two great guests on that.

former gun lobbyist and then someone who quit the nra in disgust after newtown. he'll be on the show as well. and then we'll talk about oakland. well not only is violence bad, but racial discrimination in oakland is so bad recently a mother said this. >> i'm sad and scared to be having a black boy in oakland. >> cenk: she'll be joining us on the show as well. and then finally, in texas you know they were doing the crazy creationism teaching? well, the guy who literally did the movie on that will join us. >> we say on this day, the will be done. >> cenk: some schools in texas are teaching that the universe is missing a day, because that's what it says in the bible. we'll try to figure that out on

the show tonight. it geese time. >> cenk: welcome to "the young turks." obviously big hearings on gun control today in the senate. gabby giffords came in when she was not expected to and of course had emotional testimony. and while her husband was testifying we had another shooting. three people shot in phoenix over a dispute, and the list goes on and on. and we had police chiefs coming in saying let's do something about gun control. guess who was not moved by any of this? of course wayne lapierre. >> we support enforcing the gun laws on the books. there are 25,000 violent crimes

a week in this country. the innocent are being prayed upon. victims all over the country want to be able to protect themselves. criminals don't obey the law anyway. they get what they want. and in the middle is the hard-working law-abiding tax-paying american. people want to protect themselves. >> cenk: nonsense he knows that 40% of the sales are done through gun shows or off the internet, so they are not tracked. you know who that helps? the criminals. wayne lapierre and the nra loves that, because that means that the gun manufacturers that fund the nra make a lot more money, and then we're all scared of the criminals and we go out and buy guns and then they make more money. so wayne lapierre lives on fear.

he literally makes his money off of fear. but dick durbin stood up to him. >> my problem with background checks is you're never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. all of the law-abiding people -- you'll create an enormous federal bureaucracy, unfunded hitting all of the little people in the country. pay the fees. pay the taxes. we don't prosecute anybody right now that goes through the system we have. >> senator durbin? >> mr. lapierre that's the point. the criminals won't purchase the gun because there will be a background check. you missed that point completely. and i think it's basic. >> senator i think you missed it. >> let there will order! [ overlapping speakers ] >> please, wait. everybody for a moment.

>> cenk: that's fun, but you want to get a load of something really interesting, it turns out that wayne lapierre did not miss the point. he understood the need back in 1999 . . . >> cenk: now that's of course before the nra started to take massive amounts of money from gun manufacturers and the people who sell high-capacity magazines. all of a sudden what was very reasonable in '99 after getting paid a ton of money, all of a sudden totally unreasonable. let's talk to a guy who has been in the inner circle richard feldman who is a former lawyer and political organizer for the national rifle association, and they are now a little mad at him

because of a book he wrote called "ricochet" and he is starting independent firearm owners of america. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> cenk: talk to me about what motivates the executives at the nra. >> well the nra has a board of directors, and the staff is obligated to do what the board instructs them to do. i looked at the testimony about 13, 14 years ago, and our organization strongly endorses mandatory background checks for the transfer of fire arms at a gun show. gun shows are very different than when you sell a friend or transfer a gun to a relative. you know who you sold the gun to. at a gun show you are just like a retail firearm dealer. you are open to the public and you don't have a clue who you are selling the guns to.

that's why licensed dealers put people through the background checks. everyone should go through that check at gun shows. >> cenk: let me give some numbers to you and the audience. nra contribution money. in 2010 it was $71 million, and in 2004, it was $46.3 million. so you can see the amount they are getting. none members are giving a lot more money in the last six years, and then when you look at the corporate donors they have donated $38.9 million between 2005 and 2011 from 22 different gun makers. richard how influential do you think that voice is when you give almost $40 million to the group? >> that money goes to the nra foundation and none of that is used for lobbying purposes or

political purposes. it goes to things like the shooting sports the museum fund. it's really unrelated to the political aspects of the national rifle association. >> cenk: you think so? i don't think so. and i know you and i differ on our position on gun policy and i know you have the insider's view here but to me it looks like the money is intermingling. the member money the money from corporations, and i'm supposed to believe they are not influenced by the corporate money? >> cenk when i worked at the national rifle association 20 years ago, we were told we represent american gun owners. we don't represent the industry. when i ran the industry's trade association, i negotiated the child safety lock deal with then president bill clinton. i stood in the rose garden and made that announcement, and it really doesn't matter whether

it's bill clinton or president obama or wayne lapierre. if it makes sense, it makes sense. and if it doesn't, it doesn't. we need to grow up in the country, and start dealing with the real problems and face them as adults and i think we can and should. and enough with the comments and the back and forth. the problem in america -- and we all agree it's criminals. any criminal with a gun is a bad thing. and there are things we can do to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns and we ought to do them. >> cenk: i want to talk to you about that in a second but i want to finish up this issue. the nra makes a dramatic change -- you pointed to it too, the statements from wayne lapierre from before 2005. in 2005 -- i keep pointing to that year because two things

happened. one they started taking corporate money from gun manufacturers, and they started defending gun manufacturers from lawsuits. so if it isn't the money what changed around 2005 to make that the nra what appears to be far more radical? >> i think you hit it when you said the word appears to be. sure they can position themselves sometimes, and they have made a few mistakes certainly with some of their ads of late, and that has happened in the past but if we get right down to it the power of the national rifle association isn't based in their lobbyists in washington it's based on the folks back home. it's the 4.5 million people that belong to the nra. you don't have to agree with them, but you have to understand -- if you want to understand american politics that the power is based on the folks back home --

>> cenk: richard i got to press on that a little bit more. because they don't listen to their membership. their membership is overwhelmingly in favor of -- over three-quarters say do background checks. and wayne lapierre says hell know. so why doesn't he listen to the overwhelming number of his members. >> he listens to the board of directors who are elected by the membership. like any democratic organization, there may be times when you differ from the membership, but the membership can change the leadership. just like the most important poll that the congress of the united states should be paying at attention to is the one coming on the first tuesday after the first monday 22 months from now. that's the only poll that really matters. >> cenk: all right. richard, i want you to stay with us if you can.

and i want to bring in in the next segment someone who writ the nra in disgust, and i want to talk to both of you about what should be the legislation, and both of you guys care a lot about guns. that's why i want to havavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavav [ piano plays ] troy polamalu's going deeper. ♪ ♪ and so is head & shoulders deep clean. [ male announcer ] with 7 benefits it goes deep to remove grease, gunk and flakes. deep. like me. [ male announcer ] head & shoulders deep clean for men. ♪ ♪

but when joint pain and stiffness from psoriatic arthritis hit even the smallest things became difficult. i finally understood what serious joint pain is like. i talked to my rheumatologist and he prescribed enbrel. enbrel can help relieve pain, stiffness, and stop joint damage. because enbrel, etanercept suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections tuberculosis lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common.

don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores have had hepatitis b have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. [ phil ] get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists. you know who's coming on to me now? you know the kind of guys who do like verse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. >> she gets the comedians laughing... >> that's hilarious! >> ...and the thinkers thinking. >> okay, so there's wiggle-room in the ten commandments is what you're telling me. >> you would rather deal with ahmadinejad then me. >> absolutely! >> and so would mitt romeny. >> she's joy behar. >> and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? >> only on current tv.

>> we had dramatic testimony in the gun control hearings in washington. a former gun lobbyist has written a book, ricochet confessions of the gun lobbyist. wewe have a previous member of the n.r.a., ran for congress and resigned from the n.r.a. when and why did you quit is this. >> i wrote my resignation letter on the airplane flying from l.a. to d.c. when i heard about the sandy hook shooting. as i was running for congress, i received the n.r.a. questionaire. i've always been in favor of the second amendment. i received the questionnaire which basically told me their

lobbying priorities. i was so shocked by what it is that they actually lobby for. there were maybe out of 17 questions three that i could answer yes to oh, like allowing people on the terror watch list to obtain guns. that just doesn't make any sense to me and why you would lobby for that. >> as a gun owner what do you think is reasonable in terms of ledge reaction. when president obama proposes a ban on high capacity magazines assault women and wants background checks, those are the three everybody wants. are you onboard. >> yes, i am. >> richard what do you think about those three proposals? >> when it comes to magazine capacity, there are over 100 million high capacity magazines owned by the american people today. banning the future sale of those magazines is going to have absolutely no impact on criminals obtaining and misusing them. when we start playing this game

in america about there are good semiautomatic rifles and bad ones, first of all criminals only use long guns 1% of the time, and we miss the point entirely. the issue is never the gun per se and is always in who's hands are the guns. when we focus on that, we find almost universal agreement about what to do. when we talk about the gun in general terms we end up with a food fight and we don't move the agenda forward for the american people. >> well, before we get into those two things that you mentioned, i'm really curious what your opinion on background checks are though. >> we support mandatory background checks before the transfer of a firearm at a gun show. it just doesn't make any sense to sell guns to people you don't know and not have that background check. after all at gun shows you're

in the same position a licensed dealer is in. you're open to the public, and for that purpose, you should be held to the same standard that dealers are and furthermore dealers shouldn't be put at a competitive disadvantage by civilian sellers at a gun show. we have a bill called the gun show preservation and protection act of 2013. we're going to be having that bill introduced very shortly on capitol hill. >> all right. well so all three of us agree with over 75% of the american public and 75% of n.r.a. members that we should have background checks. now, lee how do you address richard's point about the different types of guns and my capacity magazine. >> on background checks, it's private sales not necessarily me passing a gun down to a family member or through inheritance, but it's people taking out an ad and just selling a gun to somebody though don't know. those need to be regulated, as

well. i think that, you know, when you look at assault weapons there's a reason why an assault weapon is an assault weapon. it's got a collapsable stock. there are features that make it an assault weapon. there's a pistol grip, there's also a vented -- without losing accuracy. you have to say why is it that someone needs something like that in the civilian world. i don't really think that you do need something like that. that's something that's easy to exclude right away and say let's keep those military weapons in the hands of the military and paramilitary and police officers and get them off the streets. that's something that i think should be easily agreed upon. >> easily agreed upon. do you agree upon it? >> no. and lee should know better. those are not military weapons. there isn't a military in the

world interested in semiautomatic fire articles. those aren't machine guns. those are just like any other semiautomatic that's been around for over 100 years. one pull of the trigger, one round is fired. one at a time, just like a double action resolver from the old superman movies, faster than a speeding bullet. there's nothing different about semiautomatic firearms. fully automatic guns, well, they, real machine guns, they've been heavily regulated since the 1930's, and it's it's a rare day that you ever see. >> they're not in the hands of -- >> that's true. you know, if i live in a household without a bathtub the likelihood of a child drowning in that bathtub that doesn't exist is about zero. that isn't the point. >> richard that is the point. that's always the point.

hold on. the reason i'm jumping in here is because people say you need a bathtub, we need to take showers. i'm not at all convinced that we need 300 million weapons that we have in this country. in fact, i'm completely convinced that they do a lot more damage than good. in japan they don't have those guns and have about 10 gun homicides a year. we have over 10,000. >> mmm hmm. we have a very different culture than the japanese. >> we kill people more. >> yeah, we do and we can do things about that if we move the agenda forward but getting rid of the guns that are lawfully owned by 110 million of our fellow americans how would you propose removing those guns from the homes of law abiding citizens who own them now? >> so you're talking about what are you talking about, just

stopping the future sale. >> yes. >> what are you going to do with the 25 million semiautomatic "assault weapon"? >> cenk: two reasons i'm not buying your argument. >> we're going to cut down on drive by bayonetings. >> cenk: people say you can knife people, but you can't do a drive by knifing. two questions number one, australia did do it. they did a ban on certain kinds of weapons. yes, they already had the weapons, they grandfathered them in, but there have been no massacres since 1996, because they actually started to take action on it. it's not a very good argument, because there's missile launchers out there, two in l.a., one in seattle. doesn't mean we should allow for

missile launchers. >> i'm not talking about missile launchers. i'm talking about firearms commonly owned by the american people. the crime rate in australia by criminals misusing guns has risen dramatically since the ban on civilian ownership of those guns dramatically. >> cenk: lee what's the bottom line on what you think can actually get passed here and you think is a reasonable legislation? >> i hear what you hear, and i think that those three components we talked about are reasonable, but i'm not sure that we're going to see an assault weapons ban make it through the current house of representatives. i think that if you limit the capacity of the magazine, then that is in a sense, you know, if you only have 10 rounds, doesn't matter what it's coming out of, it's only 10 rounds and you give people when you're changing the

magazine time to flee or fight back. i think that's what we're talking about how to move the argument forward reasonably. >> lee, do you own a weapon now? >> i do, yes. >> how many? >> three. >> three, you do, wow. i like having your perspective here, because i don't believe in owning guns, i don't but you do and you still think three is enough and you don't need an assault weapon. richard, final question to you. why did you start your own group. what do you think is wrong with the n.r.a. >> i don't know it is what is wrong with the n.r.a., i know that our organization, the i.s.o.a., we're a very pro-gun rights group, very pro law enforcement and very pro intelligent solutions to criminal justice problems. >> cenk: all right richard feldman and dr. lee rogers. thank you for joining us, we really appreciate it. >> we'll talk to a mom in oakland who's afraid to have a black son in oakland. why?

she's worried about the constant cop abuse, and get a load of this, the media showed her story earlier where she pretend understand she was afraid of the violence. >> it made me sad. when i found out the gender of my son i was sad i'm scared to have a black boy in oakland. (vo) first, news and analysis with a washington perspective from an emmy winning insider. >> i know this stuff, and i love it. (vo) followed by humor and politics with a west coast edge. bill press and stephanie miller. >> what a way to start the day.

>> cenk: now everybody knows the city of oakland has a crime

issue. in fact, we had 117 gun deaths there in 2011. that's up from the previous year and that's not surprising given the state of guns in this country. but the priorities of oakland are fascinating. now let me give you a sense of how they compare the oakland raiders with their police department. first, broadly speaking did you know that the nfl throughout the country gets $18.6 billion in taxpayer subsidyies. that's since 1992. that's a giant amount of money going to an organization that already makes a ton of money. they don't necessarily need the subsidy. in oakland they give--the city gives the raiders $14 million a year in taxpayer money. in fact, over the last 30 years the oakland raiders received $343.3 million. but meanwhile oakland has a deficit or they did in 2011 of $32 million. so they got to get the money

from somewhere. they can't get it from the radarrers. where do they get it from? the police department. the police department is now down 18%. they lost 138 officers, 80 of which were fired. guess what happens to crime after that. look at that, murders up, 16%. rapes up, 24%. burglaryies up, 43%. what in the world is going on in this country when our priorities are so screwed up we don't even do the core governmental function of protecting our citizens. how did oakland react to this? they wanted to bring in someone that had success elsewhere, they say, and that's bill bratton. they'll pay him to consult their police department. some people were not happy with that. let me show you the ab 7's report on that. >> bratton is exactly what we don't need in the city of oakland. >> one of bratton's crime- crime-fighting tools is the controversial stop and frisk, a

tactic that enrages. in new york during bratton's tenure there were 7,000 stop and frisk stops a year. bratton said it's a effective tool. >> cenk: well, in new york city new york city is less than half minorities as a percentage of the population, but nearly 90% of the stop and frisks are on minorities. now one of the people concerned about that is jessica holly. she's pregnant, soon to be mom in oakland. she spoke and said this. >> i'm really sad that we're considering bill bratton as an alternative or as a solution for this consulting team. it makes me sad because when i went to find out the gender of my son. i almost cried and i had to force a smile. i tried to talk about this before. i can't because i didn't want to cry. i'm sad and scared to be having a black boy in oakland.

it's not just because of bill bratton. we already have very racial policies being implemented. we call them by everything other name but what they are, racial profiling. for me to say that i'm black and i'm a criminal and hooligan, and when i cuss a little bit i offend people and i'm a hooligan. i'm an educated speaker but i can't always find the words that would be more appropriate and socially acceptable to show my rage without offending people. sometimes i hope that i'm offending you so you can understand the hurt that i have even if you can't be in my shoes. >> reporter: cbs took that and said she had been scared to have a black son in oakland because of all the violence in oakland and used it to get more get-tough policy by the police. there seems to be a monumental misunderstanding by her speech. so we brought her on. jessica holly. thank you for coming on "the

young turks." we appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. >> cenk: talk to me about what your real intent was. what are you concerned with bill bratten. >> my wheel intent when showing up at the city council meeting that evening was to express my mistrust for bill bratton. the fact that not only had i visited new york, but i know people in new york who claim his policies are extremely racists especially the stop and frisk which results in unnecessary amount of minority individuals being jailed or held guilty for crimes even though they may not have been guilty of those crimes. i showed up to the city of oakland to express that, and to let them know once again that not only is the oakland police department guilty of racial profiling of extremely racist policies, but i had caught several of them on film within a three-month span last year. this message was drastically misconstrued by cbs which

resulted by my appearance on today's show, and it was also ignored along with over 400 statements and opposition against the contract that night when the city council hayesly voted at the block i'll use desley brooks' words in that way. for the measure of an urban city with high demographic of minorities citizens. >> cenk: jessica, how do we handle the problem of criminal in oakland without discriminating against people in oakland. >> the policy of a loose description of a black man wearing a through t-shirt where in oakland that describes 25% of the population depending on the color of the shirt to stop using those types of descriptions as an adequate justification for pulling out loaded weapons on innocent citizens walking down the street would be one thing.

but also to reinvest our community's ability to sustain itself. you know, if people were able to meet the basic tenants of life and survival to be able to provide a roof over their head, to feed, clothe and educate their children, if jobs were available for people who have not had the opportunity to obtain an associates, bachelor's or masters degree, then at that point we would see crime reduce. they put more beat cops out on the street. they don't have a significant crime lab. they have a low percentage of detectives if any that work with the police department. you have people being arrested on the street because of the individual bias of an officer who may or may not think that these people are guilty. you're taken to jail, and given a very busy, overworked public defender to try to represent them who probably has not had time to read their case prior to them entering court.

we're not effectively stopping crime. we're criminalizing everyone in the community, and using that method as a way to say hey desperate people of oakland who are looking for a solution, we found one. we're getting people off the streets, but we're not necessarily getting the criminals off the street. >> cenk: jessica on the one side you're saying the experience of african-americans in oakland where the police come in and question them whether they did something wrong or not. but what about the other side of the equation. what is your experience with cops responding to crime and helping the citizens in that light? >> okay, i don't actually have a very good experience with the police helping me as a citizen. particularly i use my mother as an example. someone was breaking into her house at 1:30 in the morning when she was home. she called the police department and said when she turned her lights on they still kept trying to come in. they were trying to enter the hours while they could hear her on the phone with the police. she was told that they do not have anyone available to come to

her home at 1:00 in the morning. however, if i you know, rolled through a stop sign i could potentially and more than likely have four police officers that each in individual squad cars behind me. or using a small ampfied system, then we have 60 riot police available. there is political motivation behind the actions of the police department, and they're definitely not most concerned about the protecting and serving the citizens of oakland regardless of how much we pay their salaries or for the misconduct lawsuit that continuously seem to happen. coincidentally we had two of them voted on that same night when we spoke about brat as soon as that's the most frustrating part for me. they justify the stops and frisks, and constantly haranguing people by saying we're here to do something about

crime. but actually crime we're too busy what's the point? >> exactly. jessica holly is fighting back in oakland and we appreciate you coming on "the young turks." >> thank you so much. >> cenk: all right. when we come back, texas wanted to instruction creationism in the school. there was a documentaryien who made a move about it it's a fascinating story about what they actually do teach in schools. we'll tell but that when we come back. >> the high school classroom is no place to fight the culture wars. what you're discussing now is if you impeach the denigration of evolution, to

what we need are people prepared for the careers of our new economy. by 2025 we could have 20 million jobs without enough college graduates to fill them. that's why at devry university we're teaming up with companies like cisco to help make sure everyone is ready with the know-how we need for a new tomorrow. [ male announcer ] make sure america's ready. make sure you're ready. at devry.edu/knowhow. ♪ ♪

>> cenk: we're back on "the young turks." do you remember when texas tried to teach creationism in the schools? well there is a documentary called "the revisionaries" and

it won a special jury prize at the tribeca film festival. let's look at the trailer. >> the high school classroom is no place to fight the culture wars. what you're discussing now is if you'll impeach the creation of evolution and promote creationism through the back door. >> we stay on this day your will be done in public education once again. >> i like to believe that we're living in the spirit of the christian religion governed by christian principles. >> it will change the face of our state for decades to come. >> with we've won. we are turning education in a vastly different direction. thank you. [applause] >> cenk: scott thurman, the filmmaker behind the movie now

joins us from austin, texas. thank you for coming to "the young turks." thank you for joining us. >> hey. >> cenk: they tried to push this agenda through what happened next. >> what they were working on were the standards for the essential knowledge and skills. those standards do two things. they guide teachers in the classroom, but they also determine what text book publishers have to meet for the text books. so right now actually the boards' starting that process of the text book review process. but what we followed is the standards review process and they do it subject by subject and i started in the science and as the movie shows we followed the social studies and history standard after that. >> cenk: what were some of the examples of what they wanted to put in the text books? >> well, the big argument in science was over a language called strength and weakness. they wanted to teach the strength and weakness of all

scientific theories. but scientists recognize that as creationist inspired language, specifically the weaknesses. and informed board members and moderate people on the left to counter it. in the last minute of this review process far-right members brought new language that was analyzed and evaluated which a lot of scientists argued was the same thing but this appeased the moderate board members and got the majority vote. they passed slightly creationist creationistic language over that overall broad look in looking at the strength and weaknesses, or in this case, to analyze and evaluate the scientist evaluation. i think our indirect contact with the discoverry institute

and this history of creationist political movements that went from intelligent design to teach the controversy to now okay we can't get our own views in there, we're going to at least water down evolution. we saw that new political argument happen in texas with the science standard. >> cenk: scott, i know that unrelated to that, they now have done other things in texas. they did an elective court where they teach crazy things about how the universe is missing a day because of the bible passage of the sun stopping for a day. they teach that the earth is 6,000 years old. they're only posed to teach what is in the bible but they're teaching it as if it's true and making stuff up about it. when i look at it, i'm always amazed. when you're watching that fight where do the people of text stand? do they think no, no, they're 6,000 years old and you wacky liberals are trying to bring in

facts that aren't true. how do they feel about this whole fight? >> well, i would like to think that a majority of texans want sound science in the classroom. the big difference of what you're talking about these bible courses that are elective courses. they're not science courses so it does give a little bit more freedom for teachers. they're mandated by law not to bring in their own religious views. not to promote a specific religious view in these bible courses, but from the very beginning in 2007 when the bill allowed for these courses they knew there were going to be problems with religious individuals that are going to take advantage of these courses. and part of the problem was that the courses weren't specifically laid out enough. so where it allowed some of these teachers to come in and give a little bit more of their specific religious views.

it's partly a problem of funding. >> how does the conflict get resolved in that i'm sure a great majority of people in texas believe the bible and probably believe their pastors that tell them their interpretation of the bible, etc. but at the same time that's not what science says, and they do want to teach their kids real science. how does that get resolveed? >> i think they need to vote. the bottom line, more people need to pay attention to the board of education and they need to vote. they need to use that right to put people in there that will make sound decisions and rational decisions. and lean to experts and educators in the field to inform them of best possible education for our kids. >> cenk: all right scott thurman, thank you so much for joining us. we appreciate it. >> thanks, cenk. >> cenk: absolutely. thank you. now when we come back, michael

shure, political correspondent makes an epic prediction. did he get it right? we'll show you. and a man has an idea in tennessee, if your kids are getting bad grades, they'll take welfare away from you. how did that turn out for t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t the natural energy of peanuts and delicious, soft caramel. to fill you up and keep you moving, whatever your moves.

payday. fill up and go! [ piano plays ] troy polamalu's going deeper. ♪ ♪ and so is head & shoulders deep clean. [ male announcer ] with 7 benefits it goes deep to remove grease, gunk and flakes. deep. like me. [ male announcer ] head & shoulders deep clean for men. ♪ ♪

>> cenk: we've got all "the young turks" here. ana kasparian, jayar jackson michael shure joins me.

speaking of michael shure i asked michael yet who might be the new interim senator from massachusetts, and he had this prediction. >> i can give a really dull answer to who i think it's going to be. >> cenk: go for it. >> has former chief of staff mo cowen. >> really? how did that turn out? let's look at that. >> it's my honor to introduce to you mo cowan. >> it's hard to be humble with a buying nightbig night like that. that's a big night. >> cenk: i didn't see anybody else predicting that. you nailed it. it might have been dull, but it's correct. it's not that dull. first time ever in united states history that we have two black senators. >> and one is from south carolina. i'm guessing senator cowan when

he gets there will not agree a lot with senator scott. >> cenk: perhaps the most conservative senator in the country right now. stacey campfield had an interesting idea. if your kids don't do well in school we're going to take away some of your welfare money. >> unfortunately, we have some families who really don't care about education. they don't care if their kids get an education or stay in school. what we're saying is if your kid is quitting school, not showing up showing up at 11:00 in his pajamas, that's not a prepared kid for an education. we need to motivate these parents of how important the education is. and all we have left is this cash payment that they make to these families. >> cenk: martin bashir did lay into him and i don't think it's an insane idea. here i am being in the role of

the most conservative on the panel. >> it is an insane idea for a number of different reasons. you can't put all this pressure on a child because if he or she doesn't perform well in school, then the parents respect going to have anything to eat that month. i disagree with that 100%. but the worst part, these are the same individuals that are defunding public education. they're creating an atmosphere, an environment where it's even more difficult for students to succeed because teachers are overworked and underpaid. they're not getting the materials and textbooks that they need to succeed. it's a vicious cycle they're under funding it. >> cenk: i totally agree with your point accepted by the court. no objections. >> this is glossing over other problems. you have single mothers single fathers, people working all the time. it could be be a multitude of records but we'll layout this blanket argument that your parents aren't doing enough. i know he mentioned something

about if you have actual learning disabilities, but what if you have issues that you're not addressing, or taking them to doctors. we just talked to jessica holly about how the environment through our police is making it stressful for people just to live. she doesn't know what she's going to do with her son when she has him. you're often put in a situation where third is school is the third and fourth thing to think about because you're just thinking about eating and getting by. >> cenk: i hear you but we have the teachers and students and the parents are probably the most important part of the puzzle. he's trying to address it, and would this motivate parents to get involved? it probably would. >> if you demean them by saying we're giving them a cash payment. welfare is not a cash payment for people who take it. a lot of people take it

reluctcttltl becauseset't'th last stesest.t. a lot of people take it because they're lazy. there is a segment of people who do take it. that's going to happen in society. not everything is going to be perfect. but for this guy to penalize the kids in this way the families, what happens if you take the money away from those families? what is going to happen? what's going to happen, answer that question. >> cenk: the kids are going to get straight as. i have to show the last clip here because he proved your point for you. watch what he said here with bashir. >> first off we're not saying the bar like the kids have to become rocket surgeons. we're talking bear bones. >> cenk: rocket surgeons? perhaps we ought to take some of his salary away.